> "23-year-old Gary ... explained to a woman why he took an engineering job at Palantir... $250,000 salary would allow him to help pay off his parents’ mounting medical bills, he explained."
> "that line about the medical debt. His parents don’t have any, nor are they ill."
Area man who builds oppression machinery and who is a liar is sad that other people are turned off by both of those things.
Also, lying to someone to convince them to have sex with you means you don't care about consent. There isn't a bigger turn-off in the world than that.
Back in the late Vietnam (War) days, you might not score with the ladies by talking about your highly-paid job at a munitions company, or making Agent Orange.
And the leaders of those industries really weren't in the same league as many of today's top tech zillionaires, for public perception of being alpha sociopaths.
Nowadays it's not expected that a website loads paywalled content. This one is an exception, I managed to get the full text by entering reading mode and reloading (firefox)
It's entirely reasonable for women (and men) to choose partners they want to be around. It's not about money, or career choices. It's about the fact that being around people who are diametrically opposed to your world view just isn't fun.
The problem is that 'tech bro' types want to date left-leaning, idealistic women rather than the much more suitable career-oriented, right-wing women who share their outlook. It's really hard to date people outside of your world view because they don't find you attractive.
You don't get to have all the money and status of a well-paying tech job, and also date people who don't find money and status attractive.
You're getting downvoted because of the asumption that left-leaning women are not career-oriented.
Everyone has skills & interests (tech, building things, sales, marketing, etc.) and everyone needs to survive (rent, mortage, food, etc.)..so why in the world would you assume that these things are only the domain of the right?
I don't identify with it, and that's why I'm annoyed at them for perpetuating “person who works in tech == tech bro” even if the body of the article will go on to refute that.
The headline doesn't imply those two groups are the same. And I never had the impression tech bro refers to everyone working in tech, it's more of a personality trait.
Hearing things you didn't ask for is a known risk of posting on a public forum, and probably isn't something you need to point out. Far more interesting and useful would be either a meaningful discussion beyond reiterating your feelings, or some evidence of reflection on your part.
> "23-year-old Gary ... explained to a woman why he took an engineering job at Palantir... $250,000 salary would allow him to help pay off his parents’ mounting medical bills, he explained."
> "that line about the medical debt. His parents don’t have any, nor are they ill."
Area man who builds oppression machinery and who is a liar is sad that other people are turned off by both of those things.
Also, lying to someone to convince them to have sex with you means you don't care about consent. There isn't a bigger turn-off in the world than that.
Back in the late Vietnam (War) days, you might not score with the ladies by talking about your highly-paid job at a munitions company, or making Agent Orange.
And the leaders of those industries really weren't in the same league as many of today's top tech zillionaires, for public perception of being alpha sociopaths.
Why does anyone submit paywalled links to Hacker News without including a paywall bypass link?
It's like "here, everyone read this interesting thing ... oh wait 99% of you can't read it, ha ha".
> 99% of you can't read it
Can't is a strong word. https://archive.ph/IY18i
See, it's so simple to provide.
Ok, yes, but it was also simple for you to get yourself and you just complained instead. You didn't even provide the link with your complaint.
Try a browser that makes it easier to disable js.
Nowadays it's not expected that a website loads paywalled content. This one is an exception, I managed to get the full text by entering reading mode and reloading (firefox)
It's entirely reasonable for women (and men) to choose partners they want to be around. It's not about money, or career choices. It's about the fact that being around people who are diametrically opposed to your world view just isn't fun.
The problem is that 'tech bro' types want to date left-leaning, idealistic women rather than the much more suitable career-oriented, right-wing women who share their outlook. It's really hard to date people outside of your world view because they don't find you attractive.
You don't get to have all the money and status of a well-paying tech job, and also date people who don't find money and status attractive.
This isn't complicated.
You're getting downvoted because of the asumption that left-leaning women are not career-oriented.
Everyone has skills & interests (tech, building things, sales, marketing, etc.) and everyone needs to survive (rent, mortage, food, etc.)..so why in the world would you assume that these things are only the domain of the right?
Don't call me a slur in the headline and maybe I'd read your article, Wired
Why would you identify with a slur? Can't you just label yourself as something else?
I don't identify with it, and that's why I'm annoyed at them for perpetuating “person who works in tech == tech bro” even if the body of the article will go on to refute that.
The headline doesn't imply those two groups are the same. And I never had the impression tech bro refers to everyone working in tech, it's more of a personality trait.
Thou doth protest too much
I'm a senior software engineer and I don't identify with tech bro. Might be worth doing some soul searching as to why you're insecure about this.
Peace.
didn't ask
Hearing things you didn't ask for is a known risk of posting on a public forum, and probably isn't something you need to point out. Far more interesting and useful would be either a meaningful discussion beyond reiterating your feelings, or some evidence of reflection on your part.